draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt 
Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou
Internet Draft (Alcatel) Internet Draft (Alcatel)
Category: Standard Category: Standard
Expiration Date: February 2007 October 2006
OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at line 37 skipping to change at line 34
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
control different switching technologies as well as different control different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State
Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 1 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 1
1. Conventions used in this document 1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [ASON-EVAL]. detailed in [ASON-EVAL].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
There are certain capabilities that are needed to support the ITU-T There are certain capabilities that are needed to support the ITU-T
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane
architecture as defined in [G.8080]. [RFC4258] details the routing architecture as defined in [G.8080].
requirements for the GMPLS suite of routing protocols to support the
capabilities and functionality of ASON control planes identified in
[G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
Section 7 of [ASON-EVAL] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing [RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of
Protocols against the requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
7.1 of [ASON-EVAL] summarizes the capabilities to be provided by ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in support of ASON routing. From the candidate
routing protocols identified in [ASON-EVAL] (OSPFv2 and IS-IS), this [RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing Protocols against the
document details the OSPFv2 specifics for ASON routing. requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652]
summarizes the capabilities to be provided by OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in
support of ASON routing. From the candidate routing protocols
identified in [RFC4652] (OSPFv2 and IS-IS), this document details the
OSPFv2 specifics for ASON routing.
Note that here is no implied relationship between multi-layer
transport networks and multi-level routing [RFC4652].
Implementations MAY support a hierarchical routing topology (multi-
level) for multiple transport switching layers and/or a hierarchical
routing topology for one transport switching layer.
This document details the processing of the generic (technology
independent) link attributes that are defined in this document and
in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. As detailed in Section 4.2,
technology specific traffic engineering attributes (and their
processing) MAY complement this document.
ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2. ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2.
3. Reachability 3. Reachability
In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a
summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the
techniques described in [OSPF-NODE]. techniques described in [OSPF-NODE].
This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number
indicating the range of IP addresses residing on a single IP indicating the range of IP addresses residing on a single IP
network/subnet). The set of local addresses are carried in an OSPFv2 network/subnet). The set of local addresses are carried in an OSPFv2
TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is defined per address TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is defined per address
family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6). family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6).
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 2
The proposed solution is to advertise the local address prefixes of The proposed solution is to advertise the local address prefixes of
a router as new sub-TLVs of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) Node Attribute top a router as new sub-TLVs of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) Node Attribute top
level TLV (of Type TBD). This document defines the following sub- level TLV (of Type TBD). This document defines the following sub-
TLVs: TLVs:
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable
3.1 Node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV 3.1 Node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV
The node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 3 and contains one The node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 3 and contains one
or more local IPv4 prefixes. It has the following format: or more local IPv4 prefixes. It has the following format:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 2
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | Length | | 3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask 1 | | Network Mask 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address 1 | | IPv4 Address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . . .
skipping to change at line 143 skipping to change at line 153
The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. router The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. router
address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in the address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in the
node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV. node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.
3.2 Node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV 3.2 Node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV
The node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 4 and contains one The node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 4 and contains one
or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6 Prefix Representation uses RFC or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6 Prefix Representation uses RFC
2740 Section A.4.1. It has the following format: 2740 Section A.4.1. It has the following format:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 3
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | Length | | 4 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix 1 | | IPv6 Address Prefix 1 |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . . .
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 3
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix n | | IPv6 Address Prefix n |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 197 skipping to change at line 206
The Local Adaptation is defined as TE link attribute (i.e. sub-TLV) The Local Adaptation is defined as TE link attribute (i.e. sub-TLV)
that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships. that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute
[RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross- [RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross-
connection to another link within the same layer and the ability to connection to another link within the same layer and the ability to
use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a
data link for another layer (adaptation capability). However, the data link for another layer (adaptation capability). However, the
information associated to the ability to terminate connections information associated to the ability to terminate connections
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 4
within that layer (referred to as the termination capability) is within that layer (referred to as the termination capability) is
embedded with the adaptation capability. embedded with the adaptation capability.
For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain
at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability. at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability.
Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR
will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description
of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation
capability. capability.
Note that per [RFC4202], an interface may have more than one ISCD
sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result
in any compatibility issue.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 4
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub- In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-
TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203]. TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203].
The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two
separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV. separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV.
4.2 Technology Specific Bandwidth Accounting Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], an interface MAY have more than one
ISCD sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not
result in any compatibility issue.
4.2 Bandwidth Accounting
GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD) that delivers among others the information about the (ISCD) that delivers among others the information about the
(maximum/minimum) bandwidth per priority an LSP can make use of. (maximum/minimum) bandwidth per priority an LSP can make use of.
Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], one or more ISCD sub-TLVs can be
associated to an interface. This information combined with the
Unreserved Bandwidth (sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630], Section 2.5.8)
provides for the base bandwidth accounting.
In the ASON context, accounting on per timeslot basis using 32-bit In the ASON context, additional optional and informational
tuples of the form <signal_type (8 bits); number of unallocated accounting information may be included in the technology specific
timeslots (24 bits)> may optionally be incorporated in the field of the ISCD sub-TLV according to the technology supported. For
technology specific field of the ISCD TE link attribute when the example, when the switching capability field is set to indicate TDM,
switching capability field is set to TDM value. When included, additional optional and informational accounting information may be
format and encoding MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC4202]. included per timeslot. This information may be included when the
representation and information in the other advertised fields are
The purpose is purely informative: there is no mandatory processing not sufficient for the specific technology.
or topology/traffic-engineering significance associated to this
information.
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub- The definition of processing rules for technology-specific
TLV (of type 15) of the Link TLV (of type 2). information elements are beyond the scope of this document. Some
technologies will not require additional information beyond what is
already contained in the advertisements, but others may require the
addition of further data carried in the technology specific field of
the ISCD sub-TLB. When included, the format and encoding of such
data MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC4202], and the presence
and processing rules MUST be defined in a separate document.
5. Routing Information Scope 5. Routing Information Scope
5.1. Terminology and Identification 5.1. Terminology and Identification
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 5
o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node. o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a unique single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a unique
TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, defined as TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, defined as
the Router_Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA [RFC3630]. the Router_Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA [RFC3630].
Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and
usage remain per [RFC 3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address usage remain per [RFC 3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address
of the advertising router that is always reachable if there is any of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable if there is
IP connectivity to it. Each advertising router, therefore, any IP connectivity to it. Moreover, each advertising router
advertises a unique, reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of advertises a unique, reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of
which it makes advertisements. which it makes advertisements.
o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology
information that it generates and shares with other control plane information that it generates and shares with other control plane
"routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID (32- "routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID (32-
bit) [RFC2328]. bit) [RFC2328].
The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 5
the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the
logical entities representing the data plane resources such as logical entities representing the data plane resources such as
links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri. links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri.
Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not assumed to Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not assumed to
be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri may have be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri may have
multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and Li is multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and Li is
simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only one Ri simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only one Ri
at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or more Lis. at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or more Lis.
Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single Ri Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single Ri
skipping to change at line 295 skipping to change at line 312
brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases, brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases,
the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to
the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to
disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated
with the correct TE Router ID. with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level
Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote
TE_Router_ID. TE_Router_ID.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 6
The type of this sub-TLV is 17, and length is eight octets. The The type of this sub-TLV is 17, and length is eight octets. The
value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router
Identifier followed by four octets of Remote TE Router Identifier. Identifier followed by four octets of Remote TE Router Identifier.
The value of the Local and the Remote TE Router Identifier SHOULD The value of the Local and the Remote TE Router Identifier SHOULD
NOT be set to 0. NOT be set to 0.
The format of this sub-TLV is the following: The format of this sub-TLV is the following:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
skipping to change at line 317 skipping to change at line 335
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Router Identifier | | Remote TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the
top level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more top level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more
than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be
omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 6
progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain
consistency. consistency.
Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link
(i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST (i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST
appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as
defined in [RFC3630]. defined in [RFC3630].
5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV) 5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV)
skipping to change at line 349 skipping to change at line 365
Identifier [RFC3630]. Identifier [RFC3630].
The format of this sub-TLV is the following: The format of this sub-TLV is the following:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 | Length | | 5 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the
Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more
than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be
omitted. omitted.
6. Routing Information Dissemination 6. Routing Information Dissemination
An ASON RA represents a partition of the data plane and its An ASON RA represents a partition of the data plane and its
skipping to change at line 371 skipping to change at line 389
links. The limit of the subdivision results in a RA that contains two links. The limit of the subdivision results in a RA that contains two
sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON RA levels do not sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON RA levels do not
reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF areas). OSPF routing reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF areas). OSPF routing
areas containing routing areas that recursively define successive areas containing routing areas that recursively define successive
hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate instances hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate instances
of the protocol. of the protocol.
RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward this hierarchy. The RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward this hierarchy. The
vertical routing information dissemination mechanisms described in vertical routing information dissemination mechanisms described in
this section do not introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area this section do not introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 7
hierarchy. RCs supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as hierarchy. RCs supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as
separate OSPF instances with routing information exchanges between separate OSPF instances with routing information exchanges between
levels described by import/export rules. levels described by import/export rules.
The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing
information as described in this document does not implement an Area information as described in this document does not implement an Area
Border Router (ABR) functionality. Border Router (ABR) functionality.
6.1 Import/Export Rules 6.1 Import/Export Rules
skipping to change at line 399 skipping to change at line 415
The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows: The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows:
- If the export target interface is associated to the same area as - If the export target interface is associated to the same area as
the one associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST the one associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST
NOT imported. NOT imported.
- If a match is found between the Advertising Router ID in the - If a match is found between the Advertising Router ID in the
header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router ID header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router ID
belonging to the area of the export target interface, the Opaque belonging to the area of the export target interface, the Opaque
LSA MUST NOT be imported. LSA MUST NOT be imported.
- If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be - If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be
imported and MAY be disseminated following the OSPF flooding imported and MAY be disseminated following the OSPF flooding
rules. rules. The Advertising Router ID is set to the importing routerís
router ID.
The imported/exported content MAY be transformed e.g. filtered, as D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 8
long as the resulting routing information is consistent. In The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed
particular, when more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels and e.g. filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing
both are allowed to import/export routing information it is expected information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC are
that these transformation are performed in consistent manner. bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export
Definition of these policy mechanisms is outside the scope of this routing information it is expected that these transformation are
document. performed in consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based
mechanisms is outside the scope of this document.
In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing
overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward the overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward the
hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see
Section 3) and upon strict policy control link topology information. Section 3) and upon strict policy control link topology information.
6.2 Discovery and Selection 6.2 Discovery and Selection
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection 6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection
In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing
information upward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability information upward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability
Descriptor bit [OSPF-CAP] are defined: Descriptor bit [OSPF-CAP] are defined:
- U bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - U bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to
disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level. disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 8
In case of multiple RC are advertized with their U bit set, the RC In case of multiple RC are advertized with their U bit set, the RC
with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the U bit, with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the U bit,
SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward dissemination of routing SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward dissemination of routing
information. The other RCs MUST NOT participate in the upward information. The other RCs MUST NOT participate in the upward
dissemination of routing information as long as the opaque LSA dissemination of routing information as long as the opaque LSA
information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does not reach information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does not reach
MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one RC MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one RC
advertizing routing information upward the routing hierarchy. advertizing routing information upward the routing hierarchy.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered
skipping to change at line 455 skipping to change at line 472
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection 6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection
The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in
charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy. charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy.
However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC
selection process takes into account that an upper level may be selection process takes into account that an upper level may be
adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this
purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the
RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed. RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 9
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV format carried in the OSPF OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV format carried in the OSPF
router information LSA [OSPF-CAP] is defined. This TLV has the router information LSA [OSPF-CAP] is defined. This TLV has the
following format: following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID |
skipping to change at line 478 skipping to change at line 496
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type
Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets
Value (n x 32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the Value (n x 32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the
Area ID as defined in [RFC2328]. Area ID as defined in [RFC2328].
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 9
Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To
discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information
downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor
bit [OSPF-CAP] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the bit [OSPF-CAP] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV: OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV:
- D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to
disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s). disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s).
In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID, In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID,
skipping to change at line 508 skipping to change at line 525
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered
automatically, it MUST be manually configured. automatically, it MUST be manually configured.
The OSPF Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID The OSPF Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID
of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational
Capabilities TLV [OSPF-CAP] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Capabilities TLV [OSPF-CAP] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV
[OSPF-TE-CAP] MUST NOT be re-originated. [OSPF-TE-CAP] MUST NOT be re-originated.
6.3 Loop prevention 6.3 Loop prevention
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 10
When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy, When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy,
configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the
routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid
looping/re-introduction of routing information back to the upper looping/re-introduction of routing information back to the upper
level. This specific case occurs e.g. when the RC advertizing level. This specific case occurs e.g. when the RC advertizing
routing information downward the hierarchy is not the one routing information downward the hierarchy is not the one
advertizing routing upward the hierarchy (or vice-versa). advertizing routing upward the hierarchy (or vice-versa).
When these conditions are met, it is necessary to have a mean by When these conditions are met, it is necessary to have a mean by
which an RC receiving an Opaque TE LSA imported/exported downward by which an RC receiving an Opaque TE LSA imported/exported downward by
skipping to change at line 531 skipping to change at line 549
Note that configuration and operational simplification can be Note that configuration and operational simplification can be
obtained when both functionality are configured on a single RC (per obtained when both functionality are configured on a single RC (per
pair of adjacent level) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an pair of adjacent level) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an
example where such simplification applies. example where such simplification applies.
.................................................... ....................................................
. . . .
. RC_5 ------------ RC_6 . . RC_5 ------------ RC_6 .
. | | . . | | .
. | | Area Y . . | | Area Y .
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 10
. ********* ********* . . ********* ********* .
............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............. ............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *.............
__________* | * * | * __________* | * * | *
............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *............. ............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *.............
. ********* . . ********* . . ********* . . ********* .
. | . . | . . | . . | .
. Area Z | . . | Area X . . Area Z | . . | Area X .
. RC_3 . . RC_4 . . RC_3 . . RC_4 .
. . . . . . . .
........................ ......................... ........................ .........................
skipping to change at line 562 skipping to change at line 578
Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re- Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re-
originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained
in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding
the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop
prevention problem can be solved. This additional information that prevention problem can be solved. This additional information that
MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address TLV, in MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address TLV, in
opaque LSAs including the Link TLV, and in opaque LSAs including the opaque LSAs including the Link TLV, and in opaque LSAs including the
Node Attribute TLV, is referred to as the Associated Area ID. Node Attribute TLV, is referred to as the Associated Area ID.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 11
The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows: The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 585 skipping to change at line 602
as defined in [RFC2328]. as defined in [RFC2328].
6.3.2 Processing 6.3.2 Processing
When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA
is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the
Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of
TLVs such as to identify the area from where this routing TLVs such as to identify the area from where this routing
information has been received. information has been received.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 11
When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level
receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition
the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in
Section 6.1). Section 6.1).
- If a match is found between the Associated Area ID of the received - If a match is found between the Associated Area ID of the received
Opaque TE LSA and the Area ID belonging to the area of the export Opaque TE LSA and the Area ID belonging to the area of the export
target interface, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be imported. target interface, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be imported.
- Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated - Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated
skipping to change at line 614 skipping to change at line 630
| | Area Y | | Area Y
********* ********* ********* *********
..........* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............ ..........* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............
__________* | * * | * __________* | * * | *
..........* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *............ ..........* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *............
********* ********* ********* *********
| | | |
| | Area X | | Area X
RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4 RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 12
Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example) Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example)
Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information
upward toward Area Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a upward toward Area Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a
is configured for exporting routing information toward Area X is configured for exporting routing information toward Area X
(downward the routing hierarchy). (downward the routing hierarchy).
Assumes that routing information advertised by RC_3 would reach Assumes that routing information advertised by RC_3 would reach
faster to RC_4 across Area Y through hierarchy. faster to RC_4 across Area Y through hierarchy.
skipping to change at line 636 skipping to change at line 653
would propagate in Area X (from RC 3) to RC_4. would propagate in Area X (from RC 3) to RC_4.
6.4 Resiliency 6.4 Resiliency
OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose
of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been
discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing
adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in
partitioned areas. partitioned areas.
Consider for instance (see Figure 1.) the case where RC_1a and RC 1b Consider for instance (see Figure 2.) the case where RC_1a and RC 1b
is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 12
Area Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for Area Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for
exchanging routing any routing information toward Area X. If the exchanging routing any routing information toward Area X. If the
communication between RC 1a and RC 2a is broken (due e.g. to RC 5 - communication between RC 1a and RC 2a is broken (due e.g. to RC 5 -
RC 6 communication failure), Area Y could be partitioned. RC 6 communication failure), Area Y could be partitioned.
In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC 2a to be re- In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC 2a to be re-
configurable such as to allow for exchanging routing information configurable such as to allow for exchanging routing information
downward to Area X. This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually downward to Area X. This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually
or automatically using the mechanism described in Section 6.2. or automatically. In the latter cases, automatic reconfiguration
Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported. uses the mechanism described in Section 6.2 (forcing MaxAge of the
corresponding opaque LSA information in case the originating RC
becomes unreachable). Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported.
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency 6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency
It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are
provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing
level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for
establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol
also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional. also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional.
Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following
mechanisms defined in [RFC2328]. mechanisms defined in [RFC2328].
7. OSPFv2 Extensions 7. OSPFv2 Extensions
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 13
7.1 Compatibility 7.1 Compatibility
Extensions specified in this document are associated to the Extensions specified in this document are associated to the
Opaque TE LSA: Opaque TE LSA:
o) Router Address top level TLV (Type 1): o) Router Address top level TLV (Type 1):
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.2) (see Section 6.2)
skipping to change at line 692 skipping to change at line 711
o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD): o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD):
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4 - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6 - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping - Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping
reachability per TE_Router ID reachability per TE_Router ID
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.3) (see Section 6.3)
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 13
Opaque RI LSA: Opaque RI LSA:
o) Routing information dissemination o) Routing information dissemination
- U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP] - U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP]
- D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP] - D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP]
- Downstream Associated Area ID TLV in the OSPF Routing - Downstream Associated Area ID TLV in the OSPF Routing
Information LSA [OSPF-CAP] Information LSA [OSPF-CAP]
7.2 Scalability 7.2 Scalability
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy
between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to reachability. between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to reachability.
In addition, several transformation such as prefix aggregation are In addition, several transformations such as prefix aggregation are
recommended when allowing decreasing the amount of information recommended when allowing decreasing the amount of information
imported/exported by a given RC without impacting consistency. imported/exported by a given RC without impacting consistency.
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when
involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing
and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
recommended. recommended.
o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict
policy control. policy control.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 14
The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian
Vijay, Alan Davey and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and Vijay, Alan Davey and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and
suggestions. suggestions.
9. References 9. References
9.1 Normative References 9.1 Normative References
[OSPF-NODE] R.Aggarwal, and K.Kompella, "Advertising a Router's [OSPF-NODE] R.Aggarwal, and K.Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions," Internet Draft, Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions," Internet Draft,
skipping to change at line 744 skipping to change at line 763
ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt, November 2005. ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt, November 2005.
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July [RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998. 1998.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 14
[RFC2740] R.Coltun et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December [RFC2740] R.Coltun et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December
1999. 1999.
[RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in [RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
skipping to change at line 771 skipping to change at line 789
[RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3946] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al., [RFC3946] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control," RFC 3946, October 2004. for SONET and SDH Control," RFC 3946, October 2004.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, October 2005. Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, October 2005.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 15
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)," RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)," RFC 4203, October 2005.
8.2 Informative References 8.2 Informative References
[ASON-EVAL] C.Hopps et al. "Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols
against ASON Routing Requirements", Work in progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt, May
2006.
[OSPF-TE-CAP]J.P. Vasseur et al. , "Routing extensions for discovery [OSPF-TE-CAP]J.P. Vasseur et al. , "Routing extensions for discovery
of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", Work in of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", Work in
[RFC4258] D.Brungard et al. "Requirements for Generalized MPLS [RFC4258] D.Brungard et al. "Requirements for Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," RFC 4258, November 2005. Network (ASON)," RFC 4258, November 2005.
[RFC4652] D.Papadimitriou (Ed.) et al. "Evaluation of existing
Routing Protocols against ASON Routing Requirements",
RFC 4652, October 2006.
For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see
http://www.itu.int http://www.itu.int
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," June 2002. Network (ASON)," June 2002.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 15
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols," Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols,"
November 2003. November 2003.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
9. Author's Addresses 9. Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellensplein 1, Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491 Phone: +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 16 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 16
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology Appendix 1: ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of
[G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources [G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources
which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service
provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players
do not overlap amongst themselves. do not overlap amongst themselves.
skipping to change at line 867 skipping to change at line 884
control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint,
contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an
administrative domain can be distributed into several possible administrative domain can be distributed into several possible
overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management
domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain. domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 17 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 17
different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed. resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purposes of routing. for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink
function. function.
Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
of user information, from one location to another. It can also of user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management information. provide transfer of some control and network management information.
The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
Network defined in G.805 Recommendation. Network defined in G.805 Recommendation.
User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no
routing function associated with a UNI reference point. routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 18 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 18
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and
its identifier is used within the control plane as the representation its identifier is used within the control plane as the representation
of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a set of sub- of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a set of sub-
networks, the links that interconnect them, and the interfaces networks, the links that interconnect them, and the interfaces
representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. A RA may contain representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. A RA may contain
skipping to change at line 932 skipping to change at line 949
Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls. changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC. exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC.
The PC function is protocol dependent. The PC function is protocol dependent.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 19 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 19
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTSOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
skipping to change at line 972 skipping to change at line 990
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 20 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires September 2007 20
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 100 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/